Karnataka High Court
Sri Angala Parameshwari Temple Trust ... vs G Sathish on 30 January, 2015
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.2541 of 2014 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Angala Parameshwari Temple Trust (R)
No.70, Narayana Pillai Street,
Bangalore - 560 001
Rep. by its President
S.M.Velu, Aged about 56 Years,
S/o Late Munirathnam
2. S.M.Velu,
Aged 56 Years,
S/o Late Munirathnam,
R/at No.65, Dharmaraja Koil Street,
Shivaji Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. S.Ramesh
Aged 43 Years,
S/o. Late Govinda Swamy,
R/at No.66/1, Osborne Road,
SC Garden,
Bangalore - 560 042.
4. V.G.Srinivas,
Aged 41 Years,
S/o Late Govinda Swamy,
R/at No.104/4, Veerapillai Street,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 042.
2
5. S.Sreedharan,
Aged 62 Years,
S/o P.Vasudevan,
R/at No.109, 1st Floor,
Narayana Pillai Street,
Bangalore - 560 001.
6. D.Rangaswamy,
Aged 64 Years,
S/o. Dodda Rangappa,
No.287, 6th Main Road,
K.N.Extension, Yeshvanthapura,
Bangalore - 560 022.
7. G.Seshachalam,
Aged 55 Years,
S/o Govind Chetty,
No.25, 7th Cross,
Krishna Reddy Colony,
Domlur Layout,
Bangalore - 560 071.
8. V.Anandkumar,
Aged 29 Years,
S/o S.M.Velu,
R/at No.7/3, Wheelers Road,
Frazer Town,
Bangalore - 560 005.
9. K.V.Gunasekaran,
Aged 41 Years,
S/o Vinayagan,
No.161, 4th Cross,
6th Main, Hongasandra Bommanahalli,
Bangalore - 560 068.
10. Suresh Babu,
Aged about 36 Years,
S/o A.S.Subramani,
R/at No.47,
3
Arunachalam Mudaliar Street,
Bangalore - 560 001.
11. M.Manjunatha,
Aged 53 Years,
S/o M.Murarappa,
R/at No.20/1, Osborne Road,
Sivan Chetty Garden Post,
Bangalore - 560 042.
12. Karthigeyan G.
Aged 30 Years,
S/o Ganeshan L,
R/at No.19, Skanda Nivas,
2nd Cross, Balaji Layout,
Subbannanapalya,
Banasawadi,
Bangalore - 560 053.
13. Smt.D.Nandini,
Aged 23 years,
D/o Deenandhayalan,
R/at No.20/4, Osborne Road,
Bangalore - 560 042.
14. Arun Kumar,
Aged 24 Years,
S/o Velu S.M.,
R/at No.65, Dharmaraja Koil Street,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 001.
15. J.Shankar,
Aged about 44 Years,
S/o. Jaganathan,
R/at No.53/D, PNS Layout,
2nd Cross, Kalyan Nagar,
Subbayana Palya,
Bangalore - 560 043.
4
16. K.Nagaraj,
Aged 50 Years,
R/at No.6, Narayana Pillai Street,
3rd Street, Shivajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...Appellants
(By Sri B.N.Anantha Narayana, Adv.)
AND:
1. G.Sathish,
Aged 64 Years,
S/o. Late D.R.Gunduraj,
R/at No.10, 14th Main,
2nd Stage, West of Chord Road,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore - 560 086.
2. G.Ranganna,
Aged about 52 Years,
S/o.D.R.Gunduraj,
R/at No.64, 4th Main,
Nehrunagar,
Bangalore - 560 020.
3. N.R.Vijaya Kumar,
Aged about 42 Years,
S/o N.Ranganath,
R/at No.7, Vaniyar Street,
Parangipettai, Chidambaram Taluk,
Cuddaloor District,
Tamilnadu - 625 102.
4. P.Nagaraj,
Aged 52 Years,
S/o V.Ponuswamy,
R/at No.20/4, Osborne Road,
S.C.Garden,
Bangalore - 560 042.
5
5. N.Rajan,
Aged 42 Years,
S/o Nadan,
R/at No.6/99, 7th Cross,
Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore - 560 032.
6. P.K.Dayal Kumar,
Aged 47 Years,
S/o Late Kuppuswamy,
R/at No.85, 3rd Cross,
M E Garden, Ulsoor,
Bangalore - 560 008.
7. K.Ramesh,
Aged 38 Years,
S/o Keshavulu,
R/at No.32, Muddamma Garden,
Sharavana Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 005. ...Respondents
(By Sri N.Bayya Reddy, Adv. For R1 & R2;
R3 to R5 & R7 - Served and Unrepresented)
This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule
1(r) of CPC, against the order dated:01.04.2014 passed on
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.985/2014 on the file of the 42nd
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore,
dismissing I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of
CPC, and allowing I.A.No.2 filed u/o 39 rule 4 of CPC.
This Appeal coming on for Orders this day, The Court,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the impugned order dated 1.4.2014 6 passed in O.S.No.985/2014 pending on the file of the Court of 42nd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
2. Appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants in the said suit. An application filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering with the management of the temple and its property has been dismissed and exparte temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs has been vacated under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. It is this order, which is called in question on various grounds.
3. After perusing the impugned order and hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, it is very clear that the plaintiffs are dealing with the temple property and the defendants have taken up a specific contention to the effect that they are not making any obstruction for enjoyment of the temple or its property. The assertion of the defendants is that, the temple authorities have also included property No.72 as temple property and they are likely to lose their property. It is in this regard, the learned Sessions 7 Judge has refused to confirm the exparte order of temporary injunction.
4. On going through the impugned order, it appears that the identity of the property is very much in question and nothing comes in the way of the plaintiffs to move an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC before the trial court seeking for appointment of a Commissioner, who could visit the property and submit a report, which would enable the Court to arrive at proper conclusion in order to decide the lis effectively. If for any reason, such an application filed has been dismissed, it is open for the plaintiffs to move an appropriate forum in terms of the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2010 KAR 897 in the matter of N.Swami Gowda -vs- Ramegowda.
With this observation, the appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-